Not here. But there are disagreements, some over the Brotherhood, some over “bigger” worries like the global Caliphate. Fine with me. We live in a revolutionary age and it’s hard to sort out all the players, some of whom are for real, while others are trying to convince us that they’re all for freedom when they aren’t at all. Those of us who have spent decades (good grief!) calling attention to the evil nature of Iran and the need to support democratic revolution there, worry that some of the Egyptians are trying to reprise Khomeini’s success in fooling the West into believing that he was a good democrat and wasn’t at all interested in political power, while he plotted the dark night of Persia.

So I’m sympathetic to many of the conflicting views. I’d like to believe that the Brotherhood is not a real threat to freedom for Egyptians. But I don’t. I hope I’m wrong. I agree that America must stand for freedom–and that we have failed in many Middle Eastern countries, including Egypt. As I have written, I think there are sound tactical reasons to stand by Mubarak at this juncture, even though I detest him and his oppressive system. That’s what happens when you screw up the policy for thirty years: you have no good option.

But as a general principle, and as a practical policy matter, of course we have to support freedom in Egypt, and beyond. And I think that the spat among conservatives risks deflecting our attention from the central regional issue, which is the war being waged against the United States, with its epicenter in Tehran. There may be tactical reasons to go slow in supporting all the demands of the Egyptian opposition, and I think it is fair to ask all kinds of questions about those who demand they replace Mubarak, but there are no legitimate reasons to fail to embrace the Iranian democratic opposition. Yet that’s what our government has done. That’s not only a policy blunder, it makes us accomplices to evil. I’d like to hear more about that.

Click here to view the 15 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

15 Comments, 11 Threads

I had the same confusion while talking to Sandmonkey. He desperately wanted to believe… wanted me to believe as well… that the Muslim Brotherhood was marginal. But did he know just because he’s on the ground? Do I know what his going to happen in a California election because I am on the ground here? Not always. We only make guesses no matter how close to things we are.

I’m not even sure that we screwed up Egypt policy for thirty years. I’m not sure that we’ve ever had good options concerning Egypt. What were supposed to do, try to enact regime change during the Sadat regime, or at some point afterward, while they were at peace with Israel and largely acting as an ally against terrorists and the mullahs? Should we have let the Soviets have a free hand to keep ourselves clean?

Re Iran, you’re right, there is no excuse for not standing up for freedom there.

It seems that your support for freedom is tactical rather than principled, and that you’re only expressing support for the Iranian opposition–are you sure they’re all real democrats? do you care?–in order to overthrow a regime that’s inimical to U.S. interests. Everyone can agree on that end goal, but you should be upfront that the basis of your position is not primarily support for freedom in Iran.

The downside of your position on Egypt–which is to side with the dictatorship because of a *potential* worst-case scenario rather than anything that’s actually happened–is that it will contribute to the survival of the regime, stoke Egyptians’ anger at their continued oppression and U.S. complicity, lead to increased radicalization, and then, eventually, to the actual occurrence of the very thing you seek to avoid: an Islamist revolution.

For my two-cents worth, why not support the democratic revolution and call for the U.S. to do all it can behind the scenes to support the secular democrats and to weaken, divide, and politically neutralize the MB? After all, if we could do that to large Communist mass movements during the Reagan years we can certainly do it to the Egyptian MB today.

Actually in one of my earliest posts, I did call on the US to quietly help the democrats in Egypt while fostering as smooth a transition as possible. After that time, the administration started mixing its message and sounding like it wouldn’t have much of a problem with the Muslim Brotherhood entering the government. The administration has also pushed harder on our ally Egypt that it ever pushed on our enemy Iran during its 2009 protests. That has all led to my cautious pessimism on Egypt. Factor in Egyptians’ own real attitudes on a range of relevant subjects, and it’s very arguable whether democracy there, now, will end up being good for them or anyone else. You may call that “tactical,” I just think it recognizes that the world isn’t as full of Jeffersonians as any of us would like.

If the next Egyptian government murders or expels the Coptic Christians, declares war on Israel, and supports groups that carry out terror attacks on Americans, will that meet with your approval because it was democratically elected?

Sure, we could talk a lot about Iran – and achieve little more than we’ve achieved through other means. We have a totally different relationship to Egypt, having underwritten the regime for 30 years: We paid directly for and also helped to train much of the militarized state that is currently struggling to figure out how far it can go crushing the challenges to its privileges. That makes us co-responsible. Our excuse: It helps Israel. And we wonder why 90% of Egyptians look unfavorably on us? We’re willing to sacrifice their freedom in perpetuity, in direct contradiction of our loudly advertised most basic values, because doing so serves the interests of a country they happen to despise?

… but there are no legitimate reasons to fail to embrace the Iranian democratic opposition. Yet that’s what our government has done. That’s not only a policy blunder, it makes us accomplices to evil. I’d like to hear more about that.

Policy blunder? So what did Obama say when Reilly asked him why he was silent during the 2009 uprising in Iran, yet was center stage at the first opportunity demanding that Mubarak step down?

It’s kind of counterintuitive, the State of Emergency was imposed in reaction to a presidential assasination, which was a prelude to the
attempted decapitation of the Moslem Government, Read the Looming Tower,
the IM hasn’t changed in that fundamental way, and it’s only a matter of time, before they try again.

Is the problem we don’t know this, or we don’t no that or is the problem that we have not formulated our goals and how to bring them about – e.g. what price to pay. Herewith is suggestion number one. This suggestion assumes that out presence in the Mid East is causing much but not all of our problems.

Announce Policy for Withdrawal of American Presence from Mid East
1. All US troops will be removed from Mid East
2. All US military and economic aid in the Mid East will cease
3. US will retain the right to military intervene to keep the Suez Canal Open
4. US will continue to purchase oil
5. Nothing in this policy prevents business transactions between the United States and any Mid East Country
6. US reserves right under war footing to launch remote attacks on any valid terrorist target with no limitations as to size of attacks or weapons used
7. Under our Monroe Doctrine US reserves the right to monitor all movements of individuals into the United States from Latin America and Canada
8. Under our Monroe Doctrine the governments of Cuba and Venezuela will be removed by US forces and any other Latin American forces that wish to participate.

Internal Security Changes – towards an American MI5

1. Any US citizen or any individual residing in the United States will be guilty of sedition if they participate in activities benefiting, but not limited to, the following entities: Muslim Brotherhood, Taliban, Al-Queda, Hamas, El Fatah, Hezbollah, and hostile fatwa, IRA, any training camp either inside or outside of the United States deemed as providing terrorist training.
2. It will be deemed sufficient cause for any US citizen, and all local and Federal enforcement officers to detain and individual taking pictures of industrial, military or public structures.
3. Any person coming into the United States with the intent to commit or aid a terrorist act either in the United States or against American assets in any country shall be liable to the death penalty.
4. Possession of multiple materials used to assemble terrorist exploding devices shall be punishable from 25 years to life, and liable to the death penalty if conspiracy to use can be proven.

If you are referring to my post, that’s an easy answer. Aircraft carriers, airbases in Colorado, submarines – name it. During Bush the elder’s war we sent plans from Colorado to bomb targets in Iraq. Of course, as a comprehensive plan, assuming we have allies, I bet we can get closer.

In addition, I assume it well in our ability to develop streamlined, faster and improved air to air re-fueling capacities.

Its the will that is in question and, without dispute on my side, if one has the same assumptions – which no one is required to.

The Sandmonkey is a friend of ours who is in the middle of the demonstrations in Egypt. If you want, you can amble over to his place and find out a little bit about the interaction between the Egyptian government and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian people distrust both, for very good reason.

I browsed through the postings of February, 2006. There I found a small example of

First there was proof that Egyptians are not the religious nuts both the Egyptian government and the Muslim Brotherhood would have you believe.

Yes, experience has shown in Iran that the irhabists are dangerous. Experience in Iraq has shown that, even the irhabists can be made to give way.

One key step in Iraq was to systematically poll the local people on the subject of what kind of government they wanted, in order to plot out a path toward a new government that had that priceless credibility that comes from the consent of the governed.

The Sandmonkey’s article, “The Way Forward” proposes a similar plan, from the grassroots side.

I think the relative stability of Egypt over the last thirty years, the relatively high esteem which they hold for their military, and the type of propaganda being put out by the current regime in an effort to secure calm, all point the way toward a good result.

The government has been telling its people that it won’t use force against them.

This is where I had hoped our President would help. In retrospect, it’s probably just as well. The current resident of the White House would probably have sent some idiot who thinks like Jimmy Carter instead of someone with current, pragmatic experience like Ryan Crocker.

I don’t think you can call not supporting the Iranians publicly a full blunder. If you don’t realize that outright american support would have undermined the movement within they you have no understanding of middle east politics. The anti-american sentiment in iran is mostly a function of propagnada within that regime…yet it is still there. YOu can’t ignore it and outright support would have splintered the conservatives arm of that protest. Now, privately there is a lot we could be doing in providing aid, encouraging allies in the region to publicly assert themselves, etc. Egypt is not similar at all since first its an arabian nation (not persian), and second we are in bed with their corruption. The blunder here is that in the first 2 weeks the people had their hands out and were begging for american support or at the least that america withdraw support from mubarak. Ambivalance is now translating into anti-american elements in that movement. Its the same mistake we made too many times this century. Truman and Eisenhower rejected Ho Chi minh’s pleas for american aid before he turned to the russians and chinese.